Poll: Hillary And Rudy Lead Nationally — But Many Conservatives Could Go Third Party
The new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani leading their parties by a wide margin — but there's a good reason for Rudy to be cautious.
On the Democratic side, Hillary leads with 48%, almost triple her nearest opponent — Barack Obama has 17%, followed by John Edwards at 13%.
Among Republicans, Rudy has 32%, with Fred Thompson at 15%, John McCain 13%, and Mitt Romney 11%. The bad news for Rudy: Among self-described conservatives, 38% say that there should be a third-party candidate if the GOP nominates a pro-choicer.
In the match-ups for the general election, the Dems lead by narrow or wide margins in all cases:
Clinton (D) 48%, McCain (R) 38%
Clinton (D) 49%, Romney (R) 34%
Clinton (D) 47%, Giuliani (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 49%, Thompson (R) 38%
Obama (D) 44%, McCain (R) 36%
Obama (D) 42%, Romney (R) 32%
Obama (D) 43%, Giuliani (R) 40%
Obama (D) 46%, Thompson (R) 31%
Comments (9)
Daniel wrote on October 24, 2007 12:07 PM:Remember the Rasmussen poll with Giuliani trailing by 10 and the third-party getting 14% in a three-way race? Same thing in the Fox News poll of the other day.
Shadow wrote on October 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Notice Obama keeps Guiliani a point lower than Clinton does, McCain and Romney two points lower than she does, and Thompson seven points lower than she does. Clearly, many independents who have a knee jerk opposition to Clinton due to long-standing political biases suddenly become undecided when Obama is in the race.
Were Obama to be nominated, the resulting higher name recognition would cause his number among Democrats to reach Clinton's, just like any other previous nominee, and that would result in his numbers for GE match ups to pass her. Clinton's inability to keep her Republican challengers' numbers as low as Obama does, however, is not something she can improve upon.
Bill R. wrote on October 24, 2007 1:02 PM:I haven't been a Clinton supporter but these are impressive numbers. And I think her negatives and the Repug hits on her reached their max a long time ago. The Repug smear machine hasn't even had a chance to work over Edwards or Obama, especially Obama yet. As for Hillary Americans pretty much know what they are getting and there is little room for the same old same old stuff to stick. I think, and polling says it, that America wants a restoration of the Clinton Camelot.
Michael wrote on October 24, 2007 1:57 PM:Colon, jan, and dcshunga say rah, rah, rah, rah. Where do I get tickets for the coronation?
"[R]estoration of the Clinton Camelot," are you kidding me????? That is really, really, really lame. I hate to say it, because I will be wrongly accused of being a Hillary-hater, but I think restoration of the Clinton bordello would be a more appropriate reference than chamelot. What are you smoking buddy? You haven't been a mrs. bill supporter my butt. I see talking points written all over your post.
Liberal Larry wrote on October 24, 2007 4:06 PM:Many Democrats might vote for Cynthia McKinney.
party-of-one wrote on October 24, 2007 6:17 PM:Interesting about conservatives and a third party. Did the poll also ask liberals if they would support a third party if the Democratic nominee would continue the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-profiteering/war-mongering status quo?
colonpowwow wrote on October 24, 2007 9:51 PM:party-of-one wrote:
"Did the poll also ask liberals if they would support a third party if the Democratic nominee would continue the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-profiteering/war-mongering status quo?"
Since the number of progressiver-than-thous like you out in loony lefty-land is so statistically insignificant, I guess they felt they needn't bother.
Say, I hear Nader is considering taking some time off from managing his stock portfolio online and running again. Get your resume in now.
I realize it's a very small group, but nearly three fourths of my company is either conservative or moderates. They have all expressed they would vote for ANY republican if Hillary is the Democrats choice.
Why does this matter - this small group? Well, in the past 12 election cycles, they've ended up voting for the winners, whether that be State or Federal or Executive branch.
I'm betting they are the ones NOT being polled.
If Hillary wins the Primary - Democrats will not win the White House.
Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Coonsey:
Very interesting theory. But, as a practical matter, since Hillary seems to be leading in every state that Kerry took in 2004 by greater margins than he realized, and she's leading in about five "purple" states that went to Bush last time, and Bush's Ohio's looking good, Bush's Florida and Kentucky are looking close, and if Wesley Clark (and no Huckabee) is on the ticket, Arkansas's a lock, and considering today's political climate, how exactly does this Hillary loss play out in your view?
Do you defy even those polls that have successfully picked the winner almost as predictably as your co-workers?
